Nice Post. All you left out was the thwarting of KSM's second wave directed at California. With just a little water sports we saved thousands of American lives. You're right; this isn't evidence gathering, it isn't a building of a prosecution, it is the saving of American lives and fighting a war. Again; good post.
On Apr 21, 8:21 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > SteveMG wrote: > > /This is about torture or abusing them. Not holding them in jail. Or > even killing them on the battlefield./No, this was about getting > information from people who planned operations that killed thousands so > as to prevent further operations that would kill thousands more. > > /It's about stripping them of their humanity. Clearly, if you read the > memos the OLC lawyers had these thoughts in mind while they outlined the > interrogation techniques they thought were permissible./ Steve, we have > people captured that have information, vital to our security who do not > want to give up said information and are trained to not give up > information. If the lawyers wanted to strip them of their humanity, it > was so that they would then provide us with needed information that > would save lives. KSM definitely knows information about other people in > Al Qaeda. Definitively. Being the chief logistical planner he KNOWS > definitively about any upcoming operations, that if carried out > successfuly WILL kill people in excruciating ways. Any interrogation is > not just to make them feel pain or humiliate them but to get them to > provide the needed details. And the principle would hold even if they > were just using the army field manual. They need to coerce information > out of people that don't want to divulge said info. That will > necessarily then be against their will. > And if you read the memos they went out of their way to find ways that > reduced damage or qualifications whereas they couldn't use techniques on > said detainees that crossed over the line. For example, they introduced > a technique to slam someone against the wall, but then also introduced > something they would wrap around the persons head so that they didn't > infact inflict undue damage, and they made the slamming sound louder so > that it seemed that it was worse than it was, while they were in fact > minimizing actual damage. They put insects in one guys room because he > was afraid of insects, but then determined that they had to in fact tell > him that they were not harmful so as to not cross a line. Do you think > that when Al Qaeda captures a detainee that they have such > qualifications. Did you ever see Nick Berg get his head chopped off? I > don't recall seeing any interoffice memos about how that might be > crossing a line for Al Qaeda. Yet, libs like yourself keep equating us > doing our best to minimize harm on detainees and only using enhanced > techniques when the default techniques failed with things like > decapitations. It's frankly obscene of you to even make such comparisons. > And while we're on the subject. Suppose we need to interrogate a > prisoner and have used the field manual and he doesn't cooperate. In > other words, standard interrogations failed. But we are reasonably > certain that he has information about upcoming plans because he is a > high level target. Can you envision anything we could do that you > wouldn't construe as torture? I frankly don't understand why in your > mind any interrogation whatsoever wouldn't be torture since those being > interrogated don't like being in that position and we are simply > treating them as a means to an end. > /Why do we even have limits on how to treat these prisoners? Why were > the lawyers studying the law and trying to determine what was legal and > what not? / Because we recognize that there is a line and we don't want > to cross it, but also recognize that we need to get information from > some high level targets that if we don't could lead to the deaths of > hundreds/thousands. But this is also why we have safeguards built into > any interrogations. And the memos released are nothing but exceptions > preventing the very torture that you say we are commiting. Does Al Qaeda > have any such memos preventing them from sawing off someones head? But > in your mind even raising the temperature in a room after all other > means have failed is the equivalent to chopping off someone's head. And > actually here's a question. What was Nick Berg even interrogated about? > He wasn't. They just chopped off his head. > > /Because we live by Western standards of morality and a respect for the > individual; not a radical Islamic standard./Again, you're the one > equating what we did which was nowhere near as brutal, done within the > confines of trying to save lives and prevent further attacks versus > simply chopping someones head off. Get some damn context,man. We make > such distinctions in life all the time. > If you are pulling someones teeth out becuase you want to hurt them > you're a sadist. If you pull someone's tooth out because its a needed > surgery you're a dentist. The dentist though is applying novocaine, only > pulling teeth out that need pulling for the good of the patient. > Interrogators, whatever their methods are not torturers simply because > you say so,because those being interrogated don't like to be there. Such > distinctions shouldn't have to be explained to moral people. Even in > Christianity which has rules against murder there is the concept of a > just war (which also requires killing people). > // > > // // > // // > > // Posted by: jr565 | April 21, 2009 at 06:50 PM > <http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/04/not-a-lawyer-or-even-a-...>// > > // // > // // > // // > // > > /"Because we live by Western standards of morality"/ > > The procedures used do not fall outside of the physical challenges > demanded of our own soldiers. It is ridiculous to then claim they are > too dehumanizing to employ against unlawful combatants who have commited > war crimes in order to prevent further atrocities. > > Our standards of morality *include this for training.* On that basis > what possible case can be made to exclude them against terrorists to > prevent mass murder? > > // > // // > > // Posted by: boris <http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/> | April 21, > 2009 at 06:53 PM > <http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/04/not-a-lawyer-or-even-a-...>// > > // // > // //// // // > > // --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
